Category: EPO

A a system that enabled subscribers of a wireless telecom operator to execute financial transactions with a mobile phone.

Comments:

The system was deemed to mainly relate to an excluded business scheme.

All steps of the underlying business scheme were deemed part of the information provided to the technician in charge of the technical implementation and did not as such contribute to inventive step.

The Appellant argued that the specific transaction platform and client software did not exist in a conventional wireless phone system, and so were out of reach of the normal activity of the person skilled in the art of telephone networks. However, the Board concluded that the person skilled in the art would be able to implement the new system, given the specifications of the underlying business scheme. For example, any extension of the type of financial transactions which can be performed with the account (receive monetary deposits, debit and credit operations) was deemed to be dictated by the underlying business scheme.

[With thanks to Jake Loftus for help finding and reviewing these cases.]

Over Christmas I had a chance to experiment with the European Patent Office’s Online Patent Services. This is a web service / application programming interface (API) for accessing the large patent databases administered by the European Patent Office. It has enormous potential.

To get to grips with the system I set myself a simple task: taking a text file of patent publication numbers (my cases), generate a pie chart of the resulting classifications. In true Blue Peter-style, here is one I made earlier (it’s actually better in full SVG glory, but WordPress.com do not support the format):

Classifications for Cases (in %)

Here is how to do it: –

Step 1 – Get Input

Obtain a text file of publication numbers. Most patent management systems (e.g. Inprotech) will allow you to export to Excel. I copied and pasted from an Excel column into a text file, which resulted in a list of publication numbers separated by new line (“\n”) elements.

Step 2 – Register

Step 3 – Add an App

Setup an “app” at the EPO Developer Portal. After registering you will receive an email with a link to do this. Generally the link is something like: https://developers.epo.org/user/[your no.]/apps. You will be asked to login.

Setup the “app” as something like “myapp” or “testing” etc.. You will then have access to a key and a secret for this “app”. Make a note of these. I copied and pasted them into an “config.ini” file of the form:

Step 4 – Read the Docs

Read the documentation. Especially ‘OPS version 3.1 documentation – version 1.2.10 ‘. Also see this document for a description of the XML Schema (it may be easier than looking at the schema itself).

Step 5 – Authenticate

Now onto some code. First we need to use that key and secret to authenticate ourselves using OAuth.

I first of all tried urllib2 in Python but this was not rendering the POST payload correctly so I reverted back to urllib, which worked. When using urllib I found it easier to store the host and authentication URL as variables in my “config.ini” file. Hence, this file now looked like:

This results in an access token you can use to access the API for 20 minutes.

Step 6 – Get the Data

Once authentication is sorted, getting the data is pretty easy.

This time I used the later urllib2 library. The URL was built as a concatenation of a static look-up string and the publication number as a variable.

The request uses an “Authentication” header with a “Bearer” variable containing the access token. You also need to add some error handling for when your allotted 20 minutes runs out – I looked for an error message mentioning an invalid access token and then re-performed the authentication if this was detected.

I was looking at “Biblio” data. This returned the classifications without the added overhead of the full-text and claims. The response is XML constructed according to the schema described in the Docs above.

Step 7 – Parse the XML

We now need to play around with the returned XML. Python offers a couple of libraries to do this, including Minidom and ElementTree. ElementTree is preferred for memory-management reasons but I found that the iter() / getiterator() methods to be a bit dodgy in the version I was using, so I fell back on using Minidom.

As the “Biblio” data includes all publications (e.g. A1, A2, A3, B1 etc), I selected the first publication in the data for my purposes (otherwise there would be a duplication of classifications). To do this I selected the first “<exchange-document>” tag and its child tags.

As I was experimenting, I actually extracted the classification data as two separate types: text and XML. Text data for each classification, simply a string such as “G11B 27/ 00 A I”, can be found in the “<classification-ipcr>” tag. However, when looking at different levels of classification this single string was a bit cumbersome. I thus also dumped an XML tag – “<patent-classification>” – containing a structured form of the classification, with child tags for “<section>”, “<class>”, “<subclass>”, “<main-group>” and “<subgroup>”.

My function saved the text data in a list and the extracted XML in a new XML string. This allowed me to save these structures to disk, more so I could pick up at a later date without continually hitting the EPO data servers.

Step 8 – Wrap It All Up

The above code needed a bit of wrapping to load the publication numbers from the text file and to save the text list and XML containing the classifications. This is straightforward and shown below:

def total_classifications(self):
number_list = []
#Get list of publication numbers
with open("cases.txt", "r") as f:
for line in f:
number_list.append(line.replace("/","")) #This gets rid of the slash in PCT publication numbers
for number in number_list:
XML_data = self.get_data(number.strip())
#time.sleep(1) - might want this to be nice to EPO 🙂
self.extract_classification(XML_data)
#Save list to file
with open("classification_list.txt", "wb") as f:
f.write("\n".join(str(x) for x in self.c_list))
#Save xmldoc to file
with open("save_doc.xml", "wb") as f:
self.save_doc.writexml(f)

Step 9 – Counting

Once I have the XML data containing the classifications I wrote a little script to count the various classifications at each level for charting. This involved parsing the XML and counting unique occurrences of strings representing different levels of classification. For example, level “section” has values such as “G”, “H”. The next level, “class”, was counted by looking at a string made up of “section” + “class”, e.g. “G11B”. The code is here:

The last lines print the resulting dictionary and then save it in a file for later use. After looking at the results it was clear that past the “class” level the data was not that useful for a high-level pie-chart, there were many counts of ‘1’ and a few larger clusters.

Step 10 – Charting

I stumbled across Pygal a while ago. It is a simple little charting library that produces some nice-looking SVG charts. Another alternative is ‘matlibplot‘.

The methods are straightforward. The code below puts a rim on the pie-chart with a breakdown of the class data.

That’s it. We now have a file called “class_graph” that we can open in our browser. The result is shown in the pie-chart above, which shows the subject-areas where I work. Mainly split between G and H. The complete code can be found on GitHub: https://github.com/benhoyle/EPOops.

Going Forward

The code is a bit hacky, but it is fairly easy to refine into a production-ready method. Options and possibilities are:

Getting the data from a patent management system directly (e.g. via an SQL connection in Python).

Adding the routine as a dynamic look-up on a patent attorney website – e.g. on a Django or Flask-based site.

Look up classification names using the classification API.

The make-up of a representative’s cases would change fairly slowly (e.g. once a week for an update). Hence, you could easily cache most of the data, requiring few look-ups of EPO data (the limit is 2.5GB/week for a free account).

Doing other charting – for example you could plot countries on Pygal’s world map.

Adapt for applicants / representatives using EPO OPS queries to retrieve the publication numbers or XML to process.

Looking at more complex requests, full-text data could be retrieved and imported into natural language processing libraries.

This is hopefully a solution to a problem that has driven me mad for years.

When attaching PDF documents you often see errors from patent online filing software. For PCT applications a usual one is that a set of PDF Figures are not ‘Annex F compliant’ or the page numbers are not calculated properly.

One way around this is to use the Amyuni PDF printer driver that is supplied with the European Patent Office online filing software. However, this also tends to garble a PDF document .

I think there is another, better way:
– Choose to print the document.
– Select an AdobePDF ‘printer’ (assuming you have an Acrobat print driver installed).
– Select the ‘properties’ of this printer.
– Where it says “Default Settings” change “Standard” to one of the “PDF/A” options.
– Also, while you are here, click the “Paper/Quality” tab and select “Black & White”.
– Click OK and print.
The document should then print (better than the Amyuni driver). You should then be able to upload it without errors and it should pass the online filing validation checks.

On official communications from the European Patent Office (EPO) the application number is listed in the form: 13123456.9.

However, to search for this patent application on the European Register you need to use: EP13123456 – i.e. you need to add EP and remove the check digit.

This is often a pain. It is especially a pain if you have performed optical character recognition on a scanned-in communication. In this case you cannot copy the application number directly from the PDF into the European Register search bar.

A quick solution (until the EPO fix it): this little bit of HTML and Javascript.

Article 1
The Implementing Regulations to the EPC shall be amended as follows:

1. Rule 36(1) shall read as follows:

“(1) The applicant may file a divisional application relating to any pending earlier European patent application.”

2. The following paragraph 4 shall be added to Rule 38:

“(4) The Rules relating to Fees may provide for an additional fee as part of the filing fee in the case of a divisional application filed in respect of any earlier application which is itself a divisional application.”

1. This decision shall enter into force on 1 April 2014.
2. It shall apply to divisional applications filed on or after that date.

The proposals are described in more detail in this document kindly circulated by the President of the European Patent Insititute.

Basically, Rule 36(1) EPC reverts back to its old form – from 1 April 2014 you will be able to file divisional applications as long as the parent application is still pending. [Subject to the caveat that an official version of the decision is yet to be published.]

Extra charges are being introduced, but these will only apply to divisionals of divisionals (i.e. “second generation divisional applications”). The exact charges have not been decided yet.

Although some will cry “u-turn” (not European Patent Attorneys though, we are all too polite), it is good to see the Administrative Council listen to feedback from users of the current system and act accordingly.

Feedback

Out of 302 responses received to a survey in March 2013 only about 7% sympathised with the current system. The negative consequences of the current system are clear:

It requires applicants to decide too early whether to file divisional applications (146 responses), e.g. before being sure of their interest in the inventions or their viability, prior to the possible emergence of late prior art, before having had the opportunity to dispute a non-unity objection, or even before being sure of the subject-matter for which (unitary) patent protection will be sought. Thus, the applicant is forced to file precautionary divisionals, thereby increasing the costs associated with prosecution (143 responses).

The time limits have not met their objectives (102 responses), since there has been no reduction in the number of divisionals, legal certainty has not increased, long sequences of divisionals are still possible, or there has been no acceleration of examination.

The time limits are complex and difficult to monitor, creating an additional burden and further costs for applicants and representatives (89 responses).

The negative effects of the introduced time limits are increased by the slow pace of examination (82 responses).

To address these consequences, the message from users was also clear: 65% voted for the reinstatement of the previous Rule 36 EPC. To their credit, it appears that the Administrative Council has done just that.

Reading between the lines it seems that enquiries from users of the system regarding the 24-month time limit and its operation were also causing a headache for the European Patent Office.

More Divisionals After Refusal?

An interesting aside is that it appears G1/09 is gaining ground. The document prepared for the Administrative Council stated:

This practice [of filing divisional applications before oral proceedings], though, has lost most of its basis since the Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision G 1/09 on 27 September 2010, in which it came to the conclusion that a European patent application which has been refused by a decision of the Examining Division is thereafter still pending within the meaning of Rule 25 EPC 1973 (current Rule 36(1) EPC) until the expiry of the time limit for filing a notice of appeal.

Consequently, applicants may file divisional applications after refusal of the parent application, without the need to resort to precautionary filings before oral proceedings

These “zombie” divisional applications always gave me the creeps – I would prefer to file before refusal. It will be interesting to see whether the practice of filing divisional applications in the notice of appeal period will now increase.

One of my little bugbears is that the European rules (R.49(6) EPC) require a page number to be located at the top of a page:

Rule 49(6) EPC – All the sheets contained in the application shall be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals. These shall be centred at the top of the sheet, but not placed in the top margin.

whereas the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) rules (Rule 11.7 PCT) allow a page number to be placed at the top or bottom of a page:

11.7 Numbering of Sheets

(a) All the sheets contained in the international application shall be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals.

(b) The numbers shall be centered at the top or bottom of the sheet, but shall not be placed in the margin.

This becomes annoying when you have to file translations or amendments at the European Patent Office (EPO), as these should follow European rules.

This means I often find myself needing to swap from bottom page numbers to top page numbers. This is fine when you have a Word document but trickier when all you have are PDF documents. However, there is a trick to swap from bottom to top page numbers.

Add a top header with a central page number. As the page number needs to be outside the top margin, the top margin needs to be set to at least 2cm (0.8 inches). The font size should be at least 12. Check the preview and click OK.

Now to remove the existing bottom numbers. Using the top menu add another header/footer.

Don’t replace the existing header – click Add New.

Now here comes the trick – select a ‘full block’ character using Character Map (a Windows system tool). Change the text colour to white and select a largish font size (e.g. 20+). Now copy a few of the ‘full block’ characters to the center footer. Then adjust the size of the bottom margin so the ‘full block’ characters obscure the existing page number.

There you go – now compliant with European practice. To ‘fix’ the changes ‘print’ the PDF file (e.g. using the EPO-supplied Amyuni PDF printer). If you save the header and footer settings you can recall them easily.

[Bonus tip: On Adobe Acrobat X (10) they have irritatingly moved most of the top menu options to a right-hand-side “Tools” menu. Use this to select header-footer options as below.]

Friday afternoon: office debate on the European Patent Convention (EPC).

The question that arose was: when should you request Oral Proceedings in a written response to the European Patent Office?

With the European Patent Office providing a form of “examination” at the search stage (the “Written Opinion”), it is now mandatory to respond to any objections raised therein before “examination” officially begins (via Rule 70a EPC). In this response should you request Oral Proceedings?

The question then becomes: can the Examining Division refuse a European patent application in the “first” examination communication under Article 94 EPC?

For

The case law that was laid down under the old rules (i.e. with no “Written Opinion”) held that a decision to refuse could legitimately be issued by the Examining Division as a second communication, i.e. no “further” communication under Article 94(3) EPC (nee Article 96(2) EPC 1973) was necessary. See the link for more details. This generally applied to cases where the applicant made no effort to address any objections raised in a first communication.

If these cases are applied to the present set of circumstances, where the “Written Opinion” is practically a first “examination” communication, it could be argued that the Examining Division can legitimately refuse the application without issuing an official examination communication (e.g. with a second communication relating to substantive issues). It could be argued that the right to be heard, set out in Art. 113 EPC is met, as the applicant had the chance (moreover had) to respond to the Rule 70a EPC communication.

However, if this is the case, and a request for Oral Proceedings is made in the response to the R.70a EPC communication, is the request made to the Examining Division or the Search Division? A request to the Search Division may not be valid as the Search Division cannot refuse the application. As the Examining Division “take account” of the response (see here), does this pass on the request in a valid manner?

Against

“the Examining Division shall invite the applicant, as often as necessary, to file his observations and…to amend the application”.

Now the “shall” in this provision seems to suggest that at examination the applicant should have one opportunity to file observations and/or amend the application. This would rule out a decision to refuse as the first examination communication.

However, the “as often as necessary” complicates matters – if the applicant has not responded to substantive issues in a Written Opinion at the Rule 70a EPC stage, is it necessary to give them another chance? Does “as often as necessary” mean one or more times (consistent with “shall“) or does it make the “shall” conditional (zero or more times)?

If anyone is aware of any case law or guidance that clears this up please let me know.

Many European patents are validated in United Kingdom (UK/GB), France (FR) and Germany (DE). This results in equivalent national patents in each of these countries. Obtaining status information on these individual national patents is getting easier everyday.

The European Patent Office is soon to release its “Federated Register”. This will allow you to access national patent registers via the European patent register. A new tab is provided on the left-hand side of the pre-existing European patent register to access this feature.

While we wait for the Federated Register you may find the following links useful:

System and method of assisting goods collection (e.g. to salvage the lens in disposable cameras).

Comments:

The appellant argued that the invention related to the recycling of goods, which they believed was technical.

The Board of Appeal disagreed. They argued that the invention was essentially concerned with logistical matters of collecting and distributing goods prior to the recycling process. It is those logistics that had to be examined for technical effect, not the recycling process, which is not claimed. In the present case, those logistics were found to be administrative in nature and lacking in technical character. The remaining technical features were simply well-known computers and databases. Any dependent claims related to improvements to the administrative method rather than the technical features.

This case can be distinguished from T 1411/08 wherein the case was remitted to the department of first instance to perform an additional search on the basis that the Examining Division did not convincingly demonstrate that certain technical features were “notorious”